Stahlman v. Lane

M.D. Florida

Stahlman v. Lane

DecidedJune 4, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-00272

StatusUnknown

This text of Stahlman v. Lane (Stahlman v. Lane) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Stahlman v. Lane, (M.D. Fla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

JOHN DAVID STAHLMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 5:23-cv-272-SPC-PRL

KATHY P. LANE and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff John David Stahlman’s Motion Requesting Relief from an Order and Additional Relief (Doc. 18). Stahlman filed this action in March 2023, alleging the defendants violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by limiting his access to a prison messaging system. (Doc. 1). The Court dismissed Stahlman’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and gave him leave to amend. (Doc. 15). Stahlman did not file an amended complaint, so the Court entered judgment and closed the case in July 2023. (Docs. 16 and 17). Stahlman now seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6), which allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons: (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been released or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Stahlman argues the Court’s dismissal of his complaint was based on the Chevron doctrine, which the Supreme Court overruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Stahlman is not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief. First, the Court did not rely on the Chevron doctrine when it dismissed Stahlman’s complaint, so the Loper decision is not relevant here. Second, a mere intervening change in decisional law is not the type of extraordinary circumstance that justifies relief under Rule 60(b). See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 632 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 373 F. App’x 989, 991-92 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff John David Stahlman’s Motion Requesting Relief from an Order and Additional Relief (Doc. 18) is denied. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 4, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

JOHN DAVID STAHLMAN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 5:23-cv-272-SPC-PRL

KATHY P. LANE and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff John David Stahlman’s Motion Requesting Relief from an Order and Additional Relief (Doc. 18). Stahlman filed this action in March 2023, alleging the defendants violated the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by limiting his access to a prison messaging system. (Doc. 1). The Court dismissed Stahlman’s complaint without prejudice for failure to state a claim and gave him leave to amend. (Doc. 15). Stahlman did not file an amended complaint, so the Court entered judgment and closed the case in July 2023. (Docs. 16 and 17). Stahlman now seeks relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and (6), which allows a court to relieve a party from a final judgment for the following reasons: (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been released or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Stahlman argues the Court’s dismissal of his complaint was based on the Chevron doctrine, which the Supreme Court overruled in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). Stahlman is not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief. First, the Court did not rely on the Chevron doctrine when it dismissed Stahlman’s complaint, so the Loper decision is not relevant here. Second, a mere intervening change in decisional law is not the type of extraordinary circumstance that justifies relief under Rule 60(b). See Arthur v. Thomas, 739 F.3d 611, 632 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Mock v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., 373 F. App’x 989, 991-92 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, Plaintiff John David Stahlman’s Motion Requesting Relief from an Order and Additional Relief (Doc. 18) is denied. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 4, 2025.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

SA: FTMP-1 Copies: All Parties of Record

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Stahlman v. Lane, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stahlman-v-lane-flmd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack